I had an immediate mental answer to the question in the OP, and I went through this entire thread to see if anyone beat me to it. That no one has says something about who reads this Board.
The next civil rights battle will be against AGEISM, i.e. prejudice against the elderly. Compared to the number of Baby Boomers nearing retirement, the numbers of people in each group listed in the OP is minuscule. Yet it is routine to let go of older workers in favor of cheaper, younger ones who demand less from their employer and have lowered expectations. The Supreme Court may have struck against this recently, but that these cases even arise says a lot about what is acceptable in the workplace. And with health care getting more expensive all the time, and older workers claiming more of it, I suspect a major cultural clash on the horizon. I think this issue will only get bigger for the next 20 years.
We have mentioned ageism, only we’ve only mentioned it against the young.
And that is a legitimate concern of businesses, so they should have the right to discriminate against the old or the young as they see fit.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Of course, the next civil rights movement will and should be for liberation and elevation to absolute dominance of the only truly and undeservedly oppressed minority group in human-scum history: SUBGENIUSES!
I see you went to the same charm school as Cisco, where you were taught that if you couldn’t understand something it must be wrong. We’ll start slowly - Education first.
Whilst I firmly disagree with your initial premise, I have to ask: What does being ‘skilled’ have to do with it? Do adults have to prove their political savvy before pulling the lever? It is an entirely arbitrary line to draw.
I can only assume you would, to be consistent in your position, support an amendment to ban those over the age of 60 from voting; just on the possibility or off chance they have developed Alzheimer’s or Dementia? Or maybe they are just a little bit dotty and can’t be trusted with a vote? Would you support an amendment to ban those without a college education or a degree from voting – I mean, how else could they be trusted to make informed choices if they don’t have the adequate level of education?
Once you realise how unlikely these amendments are, how ridiculous their acceptance would be, they maybe you’ll begin to understand how disenfranchised an existing portion of our society is. Giving youth the option to vote doesn’t necessarily lead to block youth voting. Those who don’t care, are not interested, are free to ignore the right. But those who do care, who want to be involved, would finally have a say in their future.
Workers.
As the economy has shifted away from manufacturing, workers in the new economy are denied the right to organize. The biggest employer is Walmart which screws its workers. The labor movement is nothing new, but in recent years its hard-won gains have been rolled back. It’s time to revitalize the labor movement to regain worker’s rights-- not only for American workers, but for sweatshop and maquiladora workers in other countries whose cheap labor we enjoy at the expense of those workers, as well as our workers whose jobs have moved overseas. As the economy is globalized, the labor movement needs to globalize too.
Amen! Only, what you’re describing would not be a civil-rights movement, it would be that older thing, a class struggle. (Really old. Marx did not invent class struggle, it runs all through the history of the Roman Republic. And was not what killed the Republic, BTW.)
I can’t understand the under-18 hate. Surely you accept that some people voted for each candidate based on nothing more than the color of their skin (both ways). Unless you are postulating that skin color is a valid reason to vote for someone, it’s no dumber than a four year old voting for Obama because he looks ‘nice’ or some ten year old voting for McCain/Palin because she thinks Palin would make a cool mom or whatever.
We don’t make any attempt to validate adults reasons for voting, why should we do the same for kids? They’re just like adults, some will make decisions based on “good” reasons that matter to them (i.e. Education:Students::Gun Control:Gun Owners), some would make uninformed decisions (Just like socialist-hatin’ adults), some would be unfairly influenced by family members and most likely the vast majority just wouldn’t care enough to go push some buttons (just like adults).
We don’t challenge adult voters on these issues, why are kids any different? Like was said earlier, this sounds like the same arguments people used to argue why women/minorities shouldn’t vote (too dumb, too easily influenced, etc.) What is the difference?
As an aside, I never could understand why I could vote as a senior in high school (in 2000) while the majority of my friends couldn’t. We were all in the same political science class, I just had a couple of months on them, not any more experience or knowledge.
Workers are *not *being denied the right to organize. That would only be the case if the government came in with batons and beat them until they got back to work. They have the *right *to organize, and the business owners have the *right *to fire them if they do.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
It’s a parody… no, it has to be a parody… either that, or the “Cult of the Child” has reached its Jonestown moment.
No, kids are not just like adults. Kids are not an oppressed class. You cannot be an oppressed class if everyone in that class grows out of it.
And maybe it would be better to disqualify people with Alzheimer’s or the uninformed-on-the-issues from voting. I’m not necessarily for completely universal suffrage. But it would be hard to draw a line, and going over that line would be the first step to disqualifying other groups from voting. With kids, though, it is pretty easy to draw that line. Our entire society is based on it.
Besides, neither of you have offered any reasons as to why children should be able to vote. How would that benefit society? If we’re accepting that the majority of them will make stupid voting decisions, then I’d rather keep them out.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
That’s what I’m thinking.
And if you’re wondering why I’m siding “against” my own short-term interests, it’s because I’ve seen the average high schooler. The average high schooler is a complete effing moron whose attempts to pass a basic standardized test (SAT or ACT, take your pick) on general knowledge results in an average score that would be a failing grade on any other exam.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Wow - this fighting ignorance thing is really going to have to get back to grass roots, eh?
Read this PDF for as a starter for 10.
Maybe if they had a vote to improve the quality of their education, things would begin to look up.
Well, that’s fair all around, then. :rolleyes:
I’m sorry, but I don’t follow your logic here at all. By your rationale, if the “average” Texan or NRA member scored poorly on SAT or ACT tests, should we disregard their votes as well? You ask why we should include children, with your main argument against it being “THEY’RE STOOPID” but our point is that lots of “stupid” people vote every election. Do you really think that these idiotic high schoolers magically grow brain cells when they turn 18?
Like I said, take 100 kids: Odds are half of them won’t care or think they will make any difference, so they won’t even vote. Of the 50 left chose some number between 0 and 50 who you think are too dumb to vote. How is this any different from adults? I don’t believe in withholding franchise from someone without a good cause. I’m sure there must be some minimal threshold for independent thought (obviously no one can tell what a 6 month old is thinking), but you won’t be able to convince me that someone who is 18 years, 5 days is substantially more qualified to vote than someone 17 years, 360 days old.
And so what if some 10 year old votes for McCain because (in his opinion) he seems friendly and looks like his grandpa? How does that ruin your democratic process any more than a 60 year old grandma voting for McCain because she’s afraid of “giving negroes a reason to be uppity”?
I also don’t buy the argument that children aren’t a protected class because they “grow out of it” either. If we don’t consider children anything more than adults waiting to grow up, why do we have special laws dealing with child porn and abuse? They are future adults that are in the process of learning how to behave like adults. What harm is done by teaching them early on about adult responsibilities like voting? Maybe if kids learned a thing or two about voting when they were younger it might stick with them a little better and cause them to be more active, informed voters in the future? The fact that they have consistent turnover essentially negates their ability to every dominate any political debate. It’s not like 5-17 year olds are going to suddenly outnumber adult voters and vote as a block to go to war with Canada or something. Why not give the ones who care a chance to share their .02?
An educated voting populace is a laudable goal (albeit something of a pipe dream, in my cynical opinion) but any system based on intelligence requirements will end up disenfranchising far more people than it brings in, including no small number of the “mentally retarded and mentally ill” championed in your own quote.
There is a fatal disconnect between “the world would be a better place if everyone voted intelligently and responsibly” to “let’s only allow intelligent and responsible people to vote.”
Best of luck in your fight against “ignorance,” though.
Eh? Did you actually read the PDF, or just the part I quoted? You seem to be missing the point.
Yes, it is. The business owners are the ones with the money; they have no obligation to give their money to the workers, but the workers would also like to have money, so they agree to perform services in exchange for the business owners’ money. If the business owners no longer desire to keep paying money to the workers, then they have the absolute right to quit doing so, i.e. fire them (unless they agreed not to in contract, even one negotiated with a union).
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Sorry, I’m not going to wade through a 53-page document supporting a point you’ve already made, and I have found ludicrous. If the two paragraphs you posted weren’t revelant, why did you post them?
The part I posted was a small snippet in response to things said by Vox Imperatoris.
I posted both links to give you a start in educating yourself that the topic I raised, showing firstly that it was neither a ‘parody’ nor 'idiotic’, or anything else you might think. It is a completely valid position to hold, regardless of your distain. You are, of course, free to disagree with the premise. But to attempt to dismiss it before you have even taken the time to bother reading anything says a lot more about you than it does about the validity of the position.
But I really have to wonder why you bother to post in this forum at all if you have no interest in either taking part in discussion or in learning anything new.
Let’s try again, as you’re not willing to educate yourself…
Agreed so far?
You probably think this is a good thing, but it is something that will gain only momentum and become an inevitable conclusion to all who take the time to understand the issue.
So, do you have a counter argument other than ‘to my unthinking gut it seems silly’?